Health Care Part 2: The President Speaks (and so Does Joe Wilson)

Like a lot of Americans, I watched the President’s “I am going to get tough with Republicans” speech in front of Congress last night. I wanted to write about the speech but it seems that very few people seem to care much about what he actually said, even though there were some important things said in that speech. So I will take a moment and address the President’s speech and what I thought of it. But the topic that seems to have everyone in the media’s attention today is the moment where the President was speaking about coverage for Illegal Immigrants, denouncing the wicked untruths that have been spread about it, and he was the victim of a verbal assault. Joe Wilson, a Republican from South Carolina, spoke a little louder than he intended and was caught in front of the national audience saying that the President was lying to the American people. Right or wrong, that stole the show….

So first my take on the speech. Let me say that I was not nearly as impressed as the liberal media was. Within two hours of the speech, it seemed that every single liberal writer over at the Huffington Post had written an article praising the President’s speech. Some were even calling it the best speech he has ever given. I will whole-heartedly denounce that as false. I thought his acceptance speech on November 4th was better. And I thought the speech he gave at the Democratic National Convention 5 years ago was even better than that one. That 2004 DNC speech would have to be the best, in my humble opinion.

He started by taking credit for saving America from, in his words, “the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression”. One, I am not sure it was the worst potential crisis for Americans. I think it had the potential to be the worst financial crisis in history for the people in power in the federal government. I think it would have crushed the power in Washington. But the American people would have weathered it, rebounded, and carried on. We are a resourceful group. Some aren’t, but then again that is where social darwinism will take over and do the job that I have always embraced it doing. Second, I don’t think that the Obama administration can take credit for fixing anything. First, the financial sector was the one with the most potential for disaster, and that was done with TARP, under Bush’s watch. Second, as much as I know that the Democrats would like you all to believe that the Economic Spendulus Bill was a good thing and that it worked, that is a bunch of bulldookey. Regardless, our arrogant leader claimed, “But thanks to the bold and decisive action we’ve taken since January, I can stand here with confidence and say that we have pulled this economy back from the brink.”

Then he made a statement that actually scared me rather than reassured me. He said, “But we did not come here just to clean up crises. We came here to build a future.” Yes, I know, paranoid folks on the right. But you know what, given the massive and seeping changes we have seen thus far, does anyone really doubt that he is looking to fundamentally change the United States of America. Regardless of whether you think what he is doing is one of the ism’s, there is little doubt that he will leave the country far different than he took it as President. And I don’t think in a good way.

Then he went about building the case for health care reform. Despite the fact that I debunked many of those numbers, he still repeated them: “There are now more than 30 million American citizens who cannot get coverage. In just a two-year period, one in every three Americans goes without health care coverage at some point. And every day, 14,000 Americans lose their coverage.” Well, NO, there are not 30 Million Americans who cannot. As pointed out 10 Million of them choose not to. The second fact about every two years is irrelevant with data to back it up. My guess is that a vast majority of those he is talking about are between jobs, or waiting the period before coverage kicks in. As for the third, convenient that you bring up 14k a day. How many each day regain coverage?

He added the unframed and false claim, “We spend one and a half times more per person on health care than any other country, but we aren’t any healthier for it.” We do spend that much, and we aren’t healthier. But we aren’t healthier in spite of that number for a plethora of reasons that I already discussed in Part 1. Our lifestyles are what produce the statistics that are used as a weapon in this argument. I have discussed it, wrote about it, and claim it as fact. He finished this section with the statement, “Now, these are the facts. Nobody disputes them.” Au contraire Mr. President, in fact there are a vast amount of people who dispute them.

Regardless of his failure to make a good case for why we have to do this in the first place, he proceeded to tell us three different groups and how they will be affected:

If you have insurance, you will not be required to change it.

If you don’t have insurance, you will be offered the opportunity to participate in the “exchange”

If you are one of those risky folks choosing not to have coverage, you will be required to get basic health insurance.

One, I don’t have a problem with. Two, I have an open mind and I am willing to see where this exchange thing goes, but it better be written well if my support is solicited. As for part three, I don’t know that I agree with this. We are a free nation and I should be allowed to choose not to have coverage it I want. Now if you want to change the laws so that the risk versus reward ratio is even less in my favor, I can agree with that. But forcing someone to get insurance when they don’t want it is no better an idea now that it was when they did it with car insurance.

He then discussed the two differing sides on the issue, and noted that the two sides he discussed are both to radical in terms of the disruptive power in the economy and the health care industry. So he said, “Since health care represents one-sixth of our economy, I believe it makes more sense to build on what works and fix what doesn’t, rather than try to build an entirely new system from scratch.” And that is something that I can agree with. The stuff that I have read coming from Congress in the form of HR3200 and the other bills showing up, constitute a major upheaval in the marketplace. He then proceeded to characterize Republicans as bad for opposing the plan. He didn’t come right out and say it was Republicans at this point, but it was clear that was what he was talking about. The only honest part of this entire part of the speech was when he said, “But what we’ve also seen in these last months is the same partisan spectacle that only hardens the disdain many Americans have towards their own government.” You got that right, Messiah, Americans have a disdain for government, and that includes you and your party, not just the other side.

He outlined his plan, which I am not going to cover here as that deserves a post all its own. And he moved into the section of the speech where he attempted to dispute the claims being made by conservatives. First he dealt with the “Death Panels” stuff, and called it “cynical and irresponsible.” I was OK with his words here although he was clearly being argumentative towards Republicans at this point. He then uttered the phrase that was apparently too much for Joe Wilson. He said, “There are also those who claim that our reform efforts would insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false. The reforms — the reforms I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.” And the President was right here, but there are some loopholes that need to be closed. In response to this statement from the President, there was some clear grumblings in the crowd, followed by a clear “You Lie” yelled by Wilson.

Pelosi Tries to Kill Wilson with her mind...

I will stop my coverage of the speech right here. I will be addressing the speech more in subsequent parts of this series. He talked for another 40 minutes after this. But the tone from Republicans was set by this point. The look from Nancy Pelosi was priceless. She shot a look that could have reduced a man to ashes. The last time I saw a look like that was from a Sister in a Catholic school. She was MAD. The look from the President was not much better, but he carried on.

It turns out that Joe Wilson was the culprit. He faces a lot of opposition after that outburst. Wilson called the White House immediately to offer an apology. It was accepted. Democratic leadership is requesting that he go a step further and apologize in the chamber during sessions. They said failing to do so would result in censure. He declined and took his chances. I am with Wilson on that aspect of things. He apologized to the President. He doesn’t need to do it in session at the House. He owed Obama an apology. He gave it. He owes Steney Hoyer and his cronies nothing. He gave that too.

But the question of the day seems to be how far out of line this was. It was certainly a breach of the decorum of the Congress. In that way he “stepped out of line” quite a bit. But I have to go on record here. I think what he said was stupid. I think it was wrong, in terms of the facts he was disputing. But I don’t have a problem with the fact that he yelled out what he thought. I know some of you are already cringing or licking your chops. But hear me out here.

First and foremost, this was yelled by a Congressman. The last time I checked, the President is one of three branches of government, according to the Constitution, that are each equal in power. The President is the President. He garners respect for the role, but he is not a King. He is not the all knowing or the Dali Lahma. The Congress is equal to the President. Therefore they have the right, especially when he comes into their chamber, to treat him the way they see fit. And if that means they yell out, so be it. I think that the Conservatives in Congress have every right to be disgusted with the President. They had to deal with him coming into their house and lying outright to them (on many things, not necessarily on this particular issue of immigrant coverage). So when he said something they thought was a lie, someone yelled out. Congress is the President’s EQUAL, not his employee. And I think that this is a fact that many people tend to lose sight of. They elect a King and get upset when he is challenged.

GOP Congressmen Wave a copy of their Bill during the address.

Second, I think that we can all agree that politicians giving speeches are, at best “disingenuous”, and at worst, outright liars. Should the President get more leeway to state things as though they are fact when they are not? For the most part, we have allowed Presidents to get up there and throw around the biggest lies and the biggest spins of any politicians. And by NOT calling them out for it, we have in some ways sanctioned this dishonest pattern. We have come to expect politicians to lie to us. And in the name of “respect” we have remained silent and let them tell their lie with a smile on their face. When faced with a phenomenal public speaker who has the ability to pull the wool over many, many people’s eyes, Joe Wilson decided he was going to call him out on it. Tactful? No. Out of Line? Maybe. Within his rights? Absolutely.

We can all pretend to sit here saying Joe Wilson is bad for what he did. And it did take things to the next level. But this really isn’t a matter of Congressional members “disrespecting” the President. They have been doing that for decades. I have watched every state of the union address for 20 years. The opposition members routinely refuse to applause things that do not go with their party line. It is one of the most childish displays that I get to see. For the record, I would like to see all reaction from Congress go away. The standing ovations and cheers are just as annoying to me.

Finally, let’s be honest with each other here. We have all, at one time or another, watched a President speak on TV and yelled what we disagreed with at the TV. We have constantly opined over the fact that no one is asking these Washington idiots the tough questions or the fact that no one seems to outwardly challenge them on their ideals. Now someone has, and we are supposed to be angry about it? Well, I am not.

I think it is about time that someone stood up and let a speaker know that you are opposed or don’t believe in what he or she is stating. It was a dumb move on Wilson’s part. But I do applaud his testicular fortitude. He saw the President again going left unchallenged on a matter that is critical to the political landscape. And he had heard enough of the rhetoric and the falsehoods. So he called out the President. I didn’t like it, but I applaud it none-the-less.

Comments

I applaud Joe Wilson. What he did was no worse than how the Democrats treated President Bush. On 2 February 2005 they booed President Bush when he tried to speak the truth about Social Security. I wish all the GOP would treat Obama like this. Hey, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. The Dems have set the tone with their treatment of President Bush. So here goes: I have ZERO respect for Obama. He is not my president. I can’t wait until he’s out of office.

Cyndi,
I agree that the Bush never received good treatment either. I think both cases are distastful. I have no issue with people voicing their views, but I have always thought that the way people have done is not right. I dont agree with alot of what Obama has done, just as I didnt agree with alot of what Bush did. But he is my President because he was elected to be.

I agree with your statement. Though, if I remember correctly (and I may not..), it wasn’t until late in his second term that Democrats started getting rough with him. I’m pretty sure he had their full-throated support after 9/11 (8 years ago today! Wow, has it really been that long?), and in the run up to the Iraq war. Granted a large part of this may have been motivated by cowardice rather than respectfulness (it was pretty clear that you had to support the President or you were with the terrorists), but still.

“I’m pretty sure he had their full-throated support after 9/11” Bush called for them to tighten their oversight of Frannie/Freddie several times in his first term. Think about where we would be if they had really supported Bush!

Would never happen. Barney is physiologically incapable of competence. But, in this fictitious world, here is what would have happened. A comprehensive oversight bill gets out of committee. The Democrats are lukewarm because we like interfering with the economy but don’t really want to give Bush a win (we’re still pissed over being called cowards). You get a 50-50 split on Democrat support. The Republican don’t like it one bit because the economy is cruising and they hate regulations of any kind and a train-wreck that hasn’t happened yet can be ignored (plus their donors are racking it in). So the Republics support Bush just enough to get it out the house but not enough to get past the (inevitable) filibuster. Bill fails and everyone takes turns pointing the finger.

I’m ok with you having that bumper sticker* as long as you never criticized Democrats for having “W is not my President” stickers. Because the “they did it first” argument doesn’t really justify things, if you thought they shouldn’t be doing it and you’re doing it now, then it’s hypocrisy.**

*Though I have a lot of faith in you LOI.. I’m sure you can come up with something more creative…

**Not calling you a hypocrite, just making sure you aren’t being one..

I do not have any bumper stickers, not even NRA, which I am a life member of.
I have no issue with anti-Bush stickers except those with profanity or false statements, but even then, I respect their right to say what they want.

If I remember correctly, we drive the same kind of car, and I understand your love for it. It is perhaps the best “adult” car I have ever had. But I had a “teenager” car when I was young that I loved too, old muscle car. They just don’t build them like that anymore, although I do love the look of the new Challenger.

Perhaps the Dems didn’t treat Bush too well, but Bush certainly didn’t treat them very well either. He repeatedly demonized them as cut-and-run un-American cowards who willingly put the troops at risk by giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Surely some reciprocity cannot be begrudged.

If your statement is that it’s ok for Republicans in congress to treat the President this way because Democrats in congress treated Bush this way (and they didn’t – they never called him a liar during a floor speech, boo’d, sure, but actively shout him down? Not that I recall). Does it factor into your equation what congressional Republicans did to Clinton? And it may have been before my time, but I’d best Bush Sr. got some rough treatment too. So, are you going to say a cycle of disrespect should be perpetuated because it is justified by itself?

I will admit, I was of the “Bush is not my President” crowd. (Personally, I would have liked President Bartlett). In retrospect, however, though I sincerely and severely disagreed with him on a great many issues, I feel I should have given President Bush and his office more respect. That said, I think we should not be applauding disruptive, disrespectful, and partisan showmanship.

You know I really hate agreeing with you Matt….but….there should be no room, even booing, on either side. It is not ok with me for either side. It has been equal… for disruptive booing is the same as disruptive rhetoric. We would spank our children for this type of behavior. I would suggest that for Congress but given the makeup, some of them might enjoy it.

I also agree that booing and making statements out of turn is inappropriate, but so are standing ovations in middle of a speech (both are a disruption to the task at hand). I do think the booing should be allowed though until there is a set time for a voice of dissent that has equal coverage.

But the way that speech works, the President gets to make his remarks, and then they turn off the lights and camera’s. Pelosi will not allow the Republicans to be heard on the floor, the media does not want to report the honest efforts the Rep’s have made, so I say it was about time someone shouted out for the rest of us who are frustrated.

So the ends justify the means? Would you have supported it if, instead of two words, it was an abusive tirade? What if he had thrown things at the podium instead – because he won’t get the media attention otherwise? What if he had charged the mound and seized the microphone? How about dousing himself in kerosene and setting himself ablaze – makes a pretty bold statement – do you support that?

And applause is perfectly appropriate. It isn’t a disruption, it’s part of the speech. There are built in pauses to allow for and encourage it. Failure to applaud conveys your dissent quite sufficiently without being immature about it. Need something stronger? Sit on your hands and look angry, then try to grab some air time afterward to voice your (respectful and polite!) disagreement in a logical and supported way rather than calling The President of the United States in front of millions of people on live national television.

The Republicans have plenty of voice and they can be heard just fine. You hear them, I hear them – what makes you think we are the only ones? The ones in the White House and in the majority get the biggest microphones – that’s the way it works, but you are not silence.

“What if he had thrown things at the podium instead?
What if he had charged the mound and seized the microphone?
How about dousing himself in kerosene, setting himself ablaze?”

#1 Did Wilson break any law?
#2 Why do we have a first
amendment?
#3 Is Obama our President or
King?
#4 You did not respond to my
#13 post yesterday

And if you just have to have melodrama, can’t beat the Stones

If I could stick my pen in my heart
And spill it all over the stage
Would it satisfy ya, would it slide on by ya
Would you think the boy is strange? Ain’t he strange?

If I could win ya, if I could sing ya
A love song so divine
Would it be enough for your cheating heart
If I broke down and cried? If I cried?

I said I know it’s only rock ‘n roll but I like it
I know it’s only rock ‘n roll but I like it, like it, yes, I do
Oh, well, I like it, I like it, I like it
I said can’t you see that this old boy has been a lonely?

If I could stick a knife in my heart
Suicide right on stage
Would it be enough for your teenage lust
Would it help to ease the pain? Ease your brain?

We’ll be fighting in the streets
With our children at our feet
And the morals that they worship will be gone
And the men who spurred us on
Sit in judgment of all wrong
They decide and the shotgun sings the song

I’ll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around me
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
And I’ll get on my knees and pray
We don’t get fooled again
Don’t get fooled again

Change it had to come
We knew it all along
We were liberated from the fall that’s all
But the world looks just the same
And history ain’t changed
‘Cause the banners, they all flown in the last war

I’ll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around me
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
And I’ll get on my knees and pray
We don’t get fooled again
Don’t get fooled again
No, no!

I’ll move myself and my family aside
If we happen to be left half alive
I’ll get all my papers and smile at the sky
For I know that the hypnotized never lie

Do ya?

There’s nothing in the street
Looks any different to me
And the slogans are replaced, by-the-bye
And the parting on the left
Is now the parting on the right
And the beards have all grown longer overnight

I’ll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around me
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I’ll get on my knees and pray
We don’t get fooled again
Don’t get fooled again
No, no!

YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss

—-

That said, no, he did not break any laws. We have a First amendment to protect freedom of the press, speech, religion and assembly. President Obama is the President. And no, I didn’t respond much yesterday as I was inhumanly swamped (unfortunately, work takes p residence over playing with you guys). But my point, again, is simply that shouting down a seated President is not an appropriate course of action, but that if you accept that it is, where do you draw the line?

You really prefer that party on the left is now the party on the right?

Get down on your knees and pray?
You know you are being fooled, again.
I thought you didn’t believe in God? Good for you!!!

Where do I draw the line?
Be truthful and polite to me, I will usually respond in kind. Don’t break the law, unless you have to or its for a good cause( I still moon people, but only those who deserve it)

Who said I don’t believe in God? I don’t believe in religion. I’m agnostic about God (much the same way I am agnostic about the existence of Pixies, but that’s neither here nor there). I agree that there must be a first cause (yea, yea, BF, we know), but I fail to see how one reaches the conclusion that it’s a God, much less all the other stuff attendant to modern religions – still, I have no evidence to rule it out so an open mind I will keep.

Even if that “thingy” is a non-sentient natural process which we could replicate in a lab if we had sufficient knowledge? If that’s God by definition, then I have to accept His existence as fact. Obviously* either a natural physical process occurred or the universe was created, but if both are defined as God, I see no alternative. If it turns out that time-traveling aliens** were somehow responsible for creating the universe, would they also be “God” in your opinion?

*Famous last words.. I suppose it’s always possible that it’s something else, and I by no means rule this out.

**They were created within the universe then traveled to a point before the universe existed and used The Science to create it.

matthius, your inquiring mind should read Lee Strobel… either The Case for Christ or The Case For A Creator. Of course, I asked my brother to read him, and he stepped away from the crazy person. It’s up to you, but the man put a lot of thought into his work.

Voting thing’s going pretty well, thanks.. Your side is welcome to stop voting though – it would be very interesting to see what happened – then we’d have a new boss (not necessarily a good thing though). But I personally prefer divided government and a strong right to balance a strong left.

I have nothing against applause for a point that was made as long as it remains polite. What I do have an issue with is the overdone applause with cheering and standing and taking 5 minutes to calm down. Just as I have a problem with the booing and rabbling. These actions are a disstraction from the message. Polite applause or lack there of is not a disstraction.

I am also not referencing just the current issue at hand. This has been a long term annoyance of mine. Dems and Reps have been on both sides and it’s appauling at the lack of respect both sides have for each other.

My point in all of this is if someone wants another person to respect what they are saying, then they should be willing to hear and respect the others voice as well. I see no respect from either side. So I understand why no respect is given in turn.

Actually, in our historic past, he could march up to the podium and thrash the Pres. with his cane. The Pres, in the tradition of that great Democrat Andy Jackson could challenge him to settle the matter with pistols on the lawn. Make it a pay per view event and we solve the national debt and maybe get enough to kick off universal health care.

Disrespectful behavior isn’t helpful but since when do the anti-Right bunch care about that? They must be spoken to in a language they understand. I say say ‘let ‘er rip’. The Dems and their followers have set the standard.

As mentioned a few days back, why is it ok for them to routinely call conservatives fascists and racists but they get a pass. personally as a conservative I have felt insulted by the rhetoric of this president on many occassions.

usw stated:
“Then he made a statement that actually scared me rather than reassured me. He said, “But we did not come here just to clean up crises. We came here to build a future.” Yes, I know, paranoid folks on the right. But you know what, given the massive and seeping changes we have seen thus far, does anyone really doubt that he is looking to fundamentally change the United States of America.”

Well said US!
I would like to expound upon your statement to add we should seriously consider the fact that his army of Czars have the power to determine policy dictated from him through their actions of altering their individual fields of assignment.

For example his agricultural Czar can’t change laws determining that field but he can regulate such things as availability of funds, water supply and restrictions upon herbicides/pesticides to force change upon a geographical area.Thats a lot of power from individuals not even vetted or approved through congress.

Oh for crissakes–did you ever think for one second he means to change it in a good way? And Google and find out which former President termed the word Czar, trust me, it wasn’t Obama. And for you worriers of communism, there it was spelled Tsar.

I’m sure BHO has good intent. The problem is his vision of where we should go and how we should get there. “Government is the problem not the solution”. Big government is a BIG problem. The size of government is inversely proportional to the freedom and liberty of its constituents.

We are and have been going the wrong way. Our President wants to go down this path at an exponentially faster speed. Scares the crap out of me.

Every G– damned dictator that ever came down the pike came down that pike with good intentions. God save us from good intentions.

The good intentions of the progressives in the early 20th century involved the sterilization of Eastern and Southern European immigrants as being sub-human. Very few of us would be here now if they had their way.

This group of progressives has an even more ambitious agenda, the elimination of the entire middle or bourgeois class leaving only themselves as overlords and the plebs.

Can anyone else honestly see it any other way. For the past 40 years it has been a war on the middle class and their values. Plain and simple.

Welcome to the site. I don’t know that this is a “for chrissakes” moment, but I think you should find out if we are really what you think we are. Yes, I did think about whether the place he wants to take us was better. There are some here who think that the answer to that question is yes. I do not.

I don’t think I mentioned the word Czars in my post and the mention in passing in someone else’s comments didn’t claim they were an invention of this administration. We are quite aware here that this is a practice used by both sides for many years. Bush had a lot of them too. And whether you spell the word with a T as they did in Russia, or a C as we do here, I fail to see the point of your statement. What does that have to do with whether Communism is the direction we are heading. I don’t think we are heading for communism, but I hope you have a better argument than in Russia they spell it with a T.

I have to agree with your wife. It is the scale of the thing that is the problem. Even if it starts out half way reasonable, they will keep ramping it up until they get where they wanted to be to begin with.

If they were operating with any good intentions at all, they would do what Taiwan did….study ALL the health care systems in the world and pull together those things that work best. Even then they would start small and take the time to work out the problems.

I personally thought that Joe Wilson’s outburst was funny. It certainly livened things up for a few seconds. I thought Pelosi’s eyes were gonna pop out of her head for a second there. Now, THAT would have been funny!

I thought the whole speech from beginning to end was pure horse dookey. I thought what Joe Wison yelled out to him was just as funny as hell. Obama’s mouth fell open like a trout out of the water and Nazi looked like if she could have she would have fried his ass on the spot by lasers shooting from her eyes.

The Republicans probably made a mistake by not calling Obama’s lying ass out more than they did. Who gives a crap if it was out of line? Maybe more of them should be out of line. If the bastard is spouting outright lies, why then call him on it. Right then. Right there. Mr. Wilson was right. With the loopholes in the bill there was going to be nothing at all stopping Illegals from getting coverage. If there is no language to stop them, them Obama lied like a rug when he said it didn’t.

Remember, they have had 2 months to read and understand this freakin’ bill. The excuse of “I haven’t read it” no longer flys. ESPECIALLY with the President of the United States. All the disegenuous bullshit and outright deception by the Administration to get “Something” passed that he can sign is a sure and certain recipe for catastrophy.

But have no fear friends and neighbors. If not this calamity, then there is most assuredly another waiting around the corner for Obama or some A-hole in Congress, or maybe one of the Czars to chunk in front of us. I can’t wait! Can you?

Having thought very hard about the health speech, having thought hard about the Wilson retort, having promised Ray a link to the “imbecile” remark and not finding it yet (sorry Ray, I will find it), having listened to the booing from the Bush years to the booing at the inauguration of Obama when Bush got up to speak, my conclusions have not changed any. I will not say the applause and the booing cancel each other out. Even though Wilson was correct, he should have respected the decorum. So should all of the booing. I do not see much difference to the “liar” remark in a Presidential speech to the booing of a past President that was doing his civic duty at the Obama inauguration. Both are equally offensive. The booing at the inauguration was not intended towards a policy speech or anything else other than direct and voiced disrespect for President Bush. I am not a Bush fan, either. I did vote for him because the alternative was worse. However, booing at the inauguration was no different than calling a President a liar…that is my opinion.

Going further. I think that the House of Commons and Parliament in England looks like a Romper Room skit on Saturday morning and it is laughable. Facial overtones, cuts of he eyes, booing, laughing and scoffing in our political forums is also Romper Room antics and should have no place in that forum and it looks ridiculous. How does one expect to train a child in respect and the rights of others when our own politicians are setting the opposite example. And before those of you on the left side of the world start, I am disappointed in both sides. How can anyone believe any statement about bi-partisanship from anyone. It simply is not going to happen.

Ok…to the health issue. Was BO’s speech full of crap? Yessir, in my so far free opinion. I think he skirts the liar liar pants of fire issue by being able to fall back on the statement…”My health proposal” or words to that effect. Everyone, including Pavlov’s dog, knows that the health proposal coming out of Congress is pretty bad. There may be a good part or two in it but without the line item veto, there is no chance of slicing and dicing. Call my interpretation flawed, but as I read it…there will be rationed care, there will be medicaid and medicare cuts that far exceed waste issues, there will be a government run, so called public option, that will decimate the private sector, there will be an erosion of freedom of choice when forcing those that do not have insurance onto the roles even if they do not want to be there, there will be coverage of illegal immigrants, and there are the “so called” death panels that will be part of rationed care. NEVER will I allow the government to discuss life or death issues with me. (No, BF, stay away from the war issue). I have two parents on the Medicaid and Medicare system and I am on the VA system. Fortunately, all of us have supplemental insurance as well. And, I am now, for the most part, considered a senior at 61 yoa.

So, the current bills out in conference now, are pure, unadulterated, fresh steaming, chicken gizzard ridden, dog poo. But the swords and knives will fly and the name calling will continue and nothing or something dreadful will be done.

There was some truth spoken that night and it was when Joe Wilson yelled “You Lie”. The rest was the biggest bunch of bulldookey ever piled on.

I hope more in Washington toughen up and call things out (that is what BO said he would do). I realize they are putting themselves “at risk” when they speak against the Adm., but the chance at bi-partisanship is a joke and now it’s about minimizing the damage that the “we won” group can do.

9-11 today; the best comment I’ve heard this morning. “Watching these attacks again, we are concerned with waterboarding, why?”

Kathy – what does decorum mean to you? Maybe instead of simply yelling “you lie” we should hope for someone else in opposition to simply run up to the podium and punch him in the face (nothing like a little violence to spice things up – or in your words – “toughen up”). Hell – lets turn the Chamber into one giant wrasslin cage and have all the participants dress up in gaudy fluorescent trunks with colorful boots and wrassle until the last man is standing – he who is standing last wins the debate. Where’s Jesse Ventura when we need him?

You offered this up as a ridiculous idea (at least I assume), but in reality, I would whole-heartedly support it if congress was run that way.

I am totally for not initiating violence against the non-violent, but I would totally watch state-sponsored violence among the violent. Would make for great TV, and probably better legislation than what we get now 🙂

Ray – don’t mean toughen up as in getting physical, but in speaking up. I’m just very, very tired of the hypocrisy; yesterday you gave a link of booing that went on during Bush’s speech – does one make it ok for the other to happen? Probably not. But the outcry over this? Ridiculous. We saw it with the townhall forums – that the left and media were appalled at the behavior and yelling that was going on.

I just don’t think playing nice while the country is being hijacked will work.

The Emperor then goes on a procession through the capital showing off his new “clothes”. During the course of the procession, a small child cries out, “the emperor is naked!” The crowd realizes the child is telling the truth. The Emperor, however, holds his head high and continues the procession.

Most commonly, the statement “the emperor has no clothes” is used to refer to a situation in which (at least in the opinion of those using the phrase) the majority of people are unwilling to state an obvious truth, out of fear of appearing stupid, unenlightened, sacrilegious, or unpatriotic, or perhaps out of “political correctness”. In such cases it is often implied that the motive and rationale for not seeing the obvious truth has become so ingrained that the majority do not even realize that they are perpetuating a falsehood.

D, respectfully I disagree on Wilson speaking out. The President was in Wilson’s House, and made some remarks that were untrue. And our President is not a king, respect must be given to be received. A look at how hard the Republicans have tried to achieve health care reform, and the way they have been treated by the media, the Democrats, and especially the President, sorry but he was asking for it. He asked to speak to the joint secession, and just like the town halls many of them endured, they knew there would be those present that would be outspoken.

If the President were more respectful to those who have asked honest questions, and tried to get resolution to their concerns,
he would have been deserving of the respect he expected.

Look at the damage caused by president Bush in respecting the office more than his and his party’s values. You voted on the man not on the office’s authority being unassailable nor its incoming mandate as being absolute. That some congressman “dared” to call him a liar for parroting away is completely understandable. Here the Prime Minister better have his sheite together before pitching the opposition or they’ll take his head off and do so every time. There’s no free pass for ignorance of the specifics nor any free pass for pitching fluff in our parliament, even if you are the Prime Minister.

Its the citizenry and the country which are sacrosanct here and certainly not those busily playing the game of thrones.

Also, a little extra info on Joe Wilson. He is an immigration attorney, that is, an attorney that works with those who are looking to come to this country legally and so is well-versed with the challenges of dealing with illegals. He also was an author/co-author of two amendments (out of two committees) that put forth Amendments to this healthcare bill, that contained specific language that illegals would not be covered under this bill. Both of these amendments were overwhelmingly voted out.

And if he knows of what he shouts, then why shouldn’t he have shouted it. If he keeps on putting out these amendments to stop it and the Dems keep slapping him down, that has to be frustrating.

Maybe he has reached his frustration limit. And anyway, if no one ever says anything because of “decorum”, then the public just is fed the bulldookey and swallow it whole because no one protests it.

And one more thing. The President lied everytime he opened his big mouth and all I hear is how Joe Wilson dared to stand up in the session and call it like he saw it. I wouldn’t have apologized to anyone. I would have said to tell the SOB to stop telling lies and I’ll stop calling him a liar.

There is one thing I’ve always disliked about the way things are done in our government. As soon as the people are elected all public debate goes to the wayside. Even in the house sessons there is hardly ever any back and forth agruing one point or another. Most Reps. give short persuasive speeches that dont really address each others points. I realize there is debate that goes one behind the scenes but what good does that do anyone except the politicans. I would love to see an actual public debate between the two sides. A chance for both parties to argue there points back and forth. It needs to be televised nationally much like the presidents speeches are.

I think you have a great idea-I propose that when the President gives an address to Congress-that Congress watch it on a big screen-and the only person we see is the President-I for one am tired of being subjected to the cruel and unusual punishment of having to watch the up, down, clap, don’t clap, fake expressions of our representatives BUT then after the President has his uninterrupted time to make his case, we switch to the Congress and they have their discussion of the Presidents speech w/ equal time to both parties and the only rule is they must discuss what he said-a back and forth discussion, not a grandstanding speech.

Bush III is already compromising and the Insurance companies will have their way in the end. There will still be millions of “American citizens” without healthcare and millions more will go bankrupt because of it.

The best line in the speech: “We are the only advanced democracy on Earth – the only wealthy nation – that allows such hardships for millions of its people.”

Fool, said I, you do not know,
silence, like a cancer, grows
Hear my words and I might teach you,
take my arms then I might reach you
But my words, like silent raindrops fell,
and echoed in the wells of silence

How will 53 new government bureaucracies accomplish giving the people this greater good? Do you want medicare cut by $500 billion?

From my #13 post,

I read the bill Democrats passed through committee in July. It creates 53 new government bureaucracies, adds hundreds of billions to our national debt and raises taxes on job creators by $600 billion.

And it cuts Medicare by $500 billion, while doing virtually nothing to make the program better for our seniors.

The president had a chance, tonight, to take the government-run health care off the table. Unfortunately, he didn’t do it.

We can do better with a targeted approach that tackles the biggest problems. Here are four areas — four important areas where we can agree, right now.

One, all individuals should have access to coverage regardless of pre-existing conditions.

Two, individuals, small businesses and other groups should be able to join together to get health insurance at lower prices, the same way large businesses and labor unions do.

Three, we can provide assistance to those who still cannot access a doctor.

And four, insurers should be able to offer incentives for wellness care and prevention.

Real reform must do this.

Let’s also talk about letting families and businesses buy insurance across state lines. I and many other Republicans believe that that will provide real choice and competition to lower the cost of health insurance. Unfortunately, the president disagrees.

I think this might be a better fit for you,

Been away so long I hardly knew the place
Gee it’s good to be back home
Leave it till tomorrow to unpack my case
Honey disconnect the phone
I’m back in the U.S.S.R.
You don’t know how lucky you are boy
Back in the U.S.
Back in the U.S.
Back in the U.S.S.R.

How do you give access to coverage for people with pre-existing conditions? By forcing insurance companies to take them? If you do this, why would anyone buy coverage before they get sick? I don’t see how you can do this without forcing people to have coverage.

Some people actually like to be proactive – you know – go see a doctor when something is amiss but not yet a full blown issue? Maybe instead of me seeing a dermatologist each year to ensure the skin spots I have are just spots I should wait until one develops into full blown cancer? WTF is that?

I know what you’re saying Ray, but health insurance is already really expensive, and a lot of young healthy people don’t think it’s worth it already, so they don’t buy coverage. If they start forcing insurance companies to take people when they come down with a million dollar illness the insurance companies are going to be forced to raise prices even more and more people will decide it’s not worth it.

Sorry BF – that is why it is, in your words, a framework, not a law or rule that is applicable 100% of the time.

There are speed limits and police to enforce them. We remove the speed limits and police (on my road the speed limit is 25 mph) thus removing that particular consequence of exceeding 25 mph – in this case a speeding ticket – that does not mean everyone will drive more than 25 mph on my road.

– Keep unnecessary lawsuits from driving up health costs. Under the Democratic bill, Americans would be required to obtain their health care through a “national health insurance exchange” that is limited to “qualified” providers. In the Ways & Means Committee, Rep. John Linder (R-GA) offered an amendment that would keep the so-called exchange from operating in states that do not have reasonable limits on lawsuits relating to medical care. Unnecessary lawsuits have long been identified as one of the primary factors in rising health costs nationwide. Rep. Glenn Thompson (R-PA) offered a similar amendment in the Education & Labor Committee that would prevent the creation of the so-called “exchange.” Both the Linder and Thompson amendments were killed at the behest of Speaker Pelosi.

– Prevent taxpayer-funded health benefits from going to illegal immigrants. Rep. Dean Heller (R-NV) offered an amendment that would increase safeguards to ensure taxpayer-funded benefits do not go to individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States. This amendment, too, was killed at the behest of Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Rangel.

– Prevent taxpayer funding of abortion. Reps. Sam Johnson (R-TX), Eric Cantor (R-VA) and Mark Souder (R-IN) offered amendments to remove language from the Democratic legislation that would result in American taxpayers subsidizing abortion-on-demand. A recent Zogby survey determined that more than 70 percent of Americans are opposed to taxpayer funding of abortion. Speaker Pelosi and her committee chairmen killed all of these amendments.

– Ensure states are not forced to provide abortion benefits. In the Energy & Commerce Committee, Rep. Nathan Deal (R-GA) offered an amendment to ensure that states are not required to provide coverage for abortion – or even procedures such as Botox injections and hair plugs. Under the Democrats’ legislation, the federal government could deny the states funding if such services are not provided. Democrats rejected Rep. Deal’s amendment in a party-line vote.

– Specify that Congress should read the health care bill before voting on it. Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX) offered an amendment expressing the sense of Congress that Members of Congress should read the health care bill before they vote on it. More than 80 House Republicans have signed a pledge vowing they will not vote to enact a health care bill they have not read and which has not been posted online publicly for at least 72 hours. Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD), by contrast, reportedly scoffed at the notion of reading the bill before voting on it. The Brady amendment was defeated in committee at the behest of Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Rangel.

– Keep President Obama’s tax pledge not to raise taxes. Last year, in his campaign for the presidency, President Obama pledged he would not raise taxes on anyone making less than $200,000 ($250,000 for those filing jointly), but the health care legislation written by House Democrats would violate this pledge. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) offered an amendment that would keep the new taxes proposed in the Democratic legislation from applying to those with incomes under $200,000 ($250,000 for those filing jointly). The Ryan amendment was killed in committee at the behest of Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Rangel. Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) offered a similar amendment in the Education & Labor Committee. It was not even allowed to come to a vote by Chairman Miller.

“This” speech was pomp and circumstance – the devil is in the details and there is no reason to expect the details to be baked out in a one hour (or so) speech

Considering this speech, other addresses and SOTU’s – there should be a notion and practice of decorum, respect and professionalism. As citizens we bear a responsibility for understanding that there will be a lot of rhetoric, a lot of pomp, maybe some substance – but I liken it to practices held in a Courtroom – show up looking like a slob and the Judge may throw you out – it is what it is.

I don’t like the cheerleading + clapping and hollering we get from the ‘party in charge’ – we get it – you support your guy – but just some polite clapping would be just fine. That nuttiness gives us the booing and other boorish behavior. That is why I say those things cancel each other out.

Shouting out “you lie” – ok – c’mon. That is crossing the line. Even if there were legitimate points to debate and argue and go back and forth over facts – you win no points by that behavior – you actually hurt your own cause and position more I think.

I find it disappointing that people think its funny. I think a lot of things are funny. I think farting is funny. I think mooning is funny as well. Sometimes – a well placed middle finger is funny as well. But I also think that it’d be real friggin nice if we could hold onto a least a thread of holding ourselves in some situations to a higher standard of respect. For Americans that dialed in hoping to learn something more – they are now sidetracked by this imbecile from South Carolina.

What is worse is the entire country is now sidetracked by the fact the Dems have already caved in. If he manages to pull this one out of the bag (single payer), he’ll get my support in the future, but I doubt I’ll have to worry about it.

Wilson was/is a sideshow (you’re right), but national healthcare has gone by the wayside right along with the distraction.

I give you that shouting out “you lie” may be crossing the line. And I 100% agree that Wilson did more to hurt the opposition to this plan than he did to help it. Instead of Republicans throwing the BS flag over what was said by the President, they are now spending all their time defending or condemning Joe Wilson.

I do not think that what Wilson did was funny. Not at all. I understand his frustration, and I understand how his mouth got ahead of his brain.

I am not one of those that fall into the camp that feels the way past Presidents were treated justifies this action. On the contrary, I called out them for their actions, and I failed in calling out Wilson more harshly for his. It took me a night of introspection to realize that. So I do not condone his actions.

But what I do acknowledge is that the Republicans have been treated very roughly by this President. He called them liars (using different words of course, and saying the statements were lies instead of calling those making them liars) and he basically called them out in the speech. He has acted arrogantly towards them in several settings, such as the “I Won” comment. If you kick a dog over and over eventually he will turn and bite your leg. Unfortunately, politics in Washington gets nastier and nastier in each successive election cycle. Republicans feel pissed on, and they are beginning to react accordingly. That doesn’t make it right, but would you agree that, decorum aside, the President has kind of brought this on himself?

“But what I do acknowledge is that the Republicans have been treated very roughly by this President. He called them liars (using different words of course, and saying the statements were lies instead of calling those making them liars) and he basically called them out in the speech. He has acted arrogantly towards them in several settings, such as the “I Won” comment. If you kick a dog over and over eventually he will turn and bite your leg. Unfortunately, politics in Washington gets nastier and nastier in each successive election cycle. Republicans feel pissed on, and they are beginning to react accordingly. That doesn’t make it right, but would you agree that, decorum aside, the President has kind of brought this on himself?”

POTUS, as I have said before, has done a terrible job at managing/leading this effort. That the sheer insanity of death panels was allowed to enter the vernacular with nary a response shows how they allowed by inaction, the necessary debate on healthcare to get sidetracked by Republicans/Conservatives who jumped on the Palin death panel bandwagon (even this morning Tim Pawlenty refused to dismiss this since it could happen in a perfect storm kinda way) or were none too obvious that they would block the reform just to block it and see POTUS fail. Reality tells me that the morons out there that believe the Death Panels garbage are not going to be swayed by Obama saying it is a lie on National TV – they will continue to cling to that craziness because misery loves company. But it still had to be said to ensure (perhaps) that a path forward will be intolerant of bs sidetracking and false accusations that hinder rather than help reform. People that assert this position are indeed liars – the difference is exactly that he did not call them out one by one as he could have.

Ray has it right. Bush III was taking the high ground in not calling out Palin for lying (which she did and continues to do). But it makes no difference. This was all a distraction of blame gaming and in the end, nothing much will change.

The real problem for Reps is while jerks like Wilson stoke the fires with his constituency (which already raised $200K since his remark) the party has nobody who can gather in what they’ll need to win in 2012. Anybody associated with clowns like Wilson will chase independents and some moderates Reps (certainly liberal Reps) the other way.

The real problem for the greatergood is obvious … it just means more of the same old same old two party system (for money, by money).

I’ll probably be dead a long time before someone like Nader can win but if things do fall apart enough (a genuine depression) and enough of the masses no longer have their little electronic gadgets to mind numb them, something might shake in the form of a people’s party.

Ah, but you see GG, Palin is NOT lying. She is basing her commentary on the only bill which is currently in existence, which is the house bill.

Palin is smart enough to realize what “end of life counseling” really means. It means that you cannot possibly provide adequate care for MORE people than are already covered while holding steady or reducing the number of doctors and facilities which will be providing care.

Obviously, the end result of this will have to be rationing of medical care, and since the elderly have already done the vast majority of their “useful contribution to society”, “end of life counseling services” will be provided to them.

So, at least in this particular case, Palin is NOT lying. She is reading what the house bill says, applying economics to it (stagnant or decreasing supply of care vs. increasing demand for care) and coming to the only logical conclusion available… some people (most likely the elderly who are very sick) are not going to be able to obtain the type of care that they currently expect.

To look at it in bare economic terms, I have seen statistics that say 90% of our health care dollars are spent in the last 2 years of life. (That would be a phenomenal number at 50%).

But how many want the government to say, “Looks like your approaching your last couple of years of life, we will see that you are comfortable, but will not pay for treatment that will only prolong the inevitable”?

I can certainly see that happening, dollars are going to dictate that kind of rationing, no matter what they call it, EOL counseling, death panel, etc.

Health care reform or not, I think Medicare patients are in for a lot of changes. As medical technology advances life span, will be able to afford it?

Here in Canada they to look at what’s going to be consumed, what’s going to be gained and for whom. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise. The system’s resources are finite. We get that and while not much liking it, accept it too as necessary to our system. Those of us who can afford different indeed do so for OUR FAMILY and that’s a line even our most liberal government swings won’t cross. They get that we are barely socialist lite and like it that way.

If you find the time I would find a guest commentary on how finite resources are rationed in Canada fascinating. I am especially interested in how Canada is dealing with those who are along in years and costing the most. We have a lot folks who assume that “death panels” are the inevitable conclusion of what is in the bill, despite the fact that the bill doesn’t specifically call for them. I would be interested in how this is done in practice as opposed to partisan theory as we see from the politicians we cannot trust.

The high ground? This POTUS? Barack Obama you’re talking of? He’s yet to do that in any forum. The right shouldn’t be having such an easy time pushing him off balance and his inability to wield the sizable advantage his party possesses shows this clearly. That’s the reality. Had he the data to make true all that he presents it would also have been presented. I solve corporate problems for a living and living is very good. You don’t go into a meeting with hostiles present and not have the hard data to back up your position EVER!

Was it not Congressman David Crockett of Tennessee who said “Be sure you are right and then go ahead” perhaps congressmen Wilson was following that dictum.

I seem to remember that Crockett sacrificed his career by not bowing to Old Hickory.

I still love that parting line, I believe it was, “You gentlemen can all go to hell, I’m going to Texas”. It’s time for being plain spoken again. A lie is a lie. The President of these United States is no better than I. He is merely the first among equals. I bow to no king. Obama has already proved that he does.

How much has the value of the dollar really fallen in the last 10 years?

Back in November of 2000, you could buy 1 Euro for about 84 cents. Today, less than 9 years later, it will cost you $1.46 to buy that same Euro.

I would argue that the value of the Euro has not significantly increased over this time period, so the conclusion that I come up with is that the majority of this is devaluation of the dollar. This means that in less than 9 years, the value of one dollar has fallen by about 42.5%.

So, when someone tells you that interest rates are low, and inflation is low, keep in mind that over the past 9 years, the “real” value of the dollar has fallen vs. the Euro by 42.5%.

Now for the truly scary part. In November of 2000, the price of gold was $270 per ounce. Now, less than 9 years later, gold sits at $1005 per ounce. Gold is a far better measure of the relative value of a dollar than the Euro is. In less than 9 years, the dollar has lost 73% of its value vs. gold. It should be noted that the Euro has also lost value vs. gold during this time period, but not nearly the value vs. gold lost by the dollar.

So, in REAL TERMS (gold being a real and tangible asset), the dollar in your pocket is worth about 73% less than it was 9 short years ago. This should scare the hell out of you.

Just some follow-up information for those of you who asked, “Well, what if I was in the stock market from November 2000 to now?”

Throughout November of 2000, the Dow Jones Industrial Average hovered around 10,500 points. Right now, as I post this, the DJIA sits at 9630 points. So, if you had been in a broad, well-balance portfolio of stocks from November 2000 to now, in addition to the 73% dollar loss vs. gold, you would have also lost 8.3% of your dollar value in the stock market, making your total loss for that time period over 80% vs. gold.

You said: “I would argue that the value of the Euro has not significantly increased over this time period, so the conclusion that I come up with is that the majority of this is devaluation of the dollar. This means that in less than 9 years, the value of one dollar has fallen by about 42.5%.”

Check your premise. I am not saying you are wrong, but I am interested in why you feel this way. The Euro has increased in value versus much of the world’s currency. Would that not not argue for the fact that the Euro has, in fact, increased in value?

You might be on to something here actually. In November of 2000, the spot gold price was about $270 for gold denominated in US $, and right around 270 Euros, in spite of the fact that the Euro was only worth about 84 cents.

This represents a bizzare issue… at this particular point (November 2000), the Euro was worth LESS than the dollar in the currency markets, but according to the gold standard, they were basically on par. This indicates that the currency markets were out of whack a bit and that in November of 2000, the REAL value of 1 Euro was bascially $1.

If you had wanted to make instant money at that time, you could have used $270 to buy 321.43 Euros, bought 1 ounce of gold for 270 Euros, and stuck 51.43 Euros in your pocket (or converted them back to dollars for a profit of $43.20 I wonder how many people were smart enough to do that at the time….

Anyway, since November of 2000, the price of gold has risen from $270 to $1005, but in the same time period has only risen from 270 Euros to 683 Euros

By the dollar standard, the dollar has fallen 42.5% vs the Euro.

By the gold standard, the dollar has fallen about 68% vs the Euro, indicating that the Euro has inreased in real value vs. the dollar over this time.

In terms of dollars, the price of gold has increased by 372% since November 2000 while in terms of Euros, the price of gold has only increased by 253%.

This would support the position (sort of). The best way to actually put it would be that the Euro has LOST REAL VALUE MORE SLOWLY than the dollar over the same period of time (thus meaning that it has indeed “gained” in value vs the dollar over that time period)

Thanks for the thorough explanation Peter. I was sitting there writing what I did with my logical thinking cap on trying to think of other explanations. I love it when folks back their positions or opinions with some logical thought and data to boot!

As Peter said, perhaps increasing really means just devaluing at a slower rate than the US dollar. But thank you for the information. Between you and Peter, I was able to get my head around it a little better. As I said above, I couldn’t claim he was wrong, as I am not an economist, but I wanted to apply some critical thinking to the situation and reevaluate.

I assume that the Yen has also lost value vs. gold in the past 9 years, but from looking at your charts, is it safe to assume that the Yen has held its value better than either the Euro or the Dollar?

Also, with what is currently going on in Japan, do you think the Yen will continue to hold value better than the Euro or the Dollar, or will it start losing value faster now?

I think that the safest play is to at least own some hard, tangible gold assets, but if I wanted to diversify into owning some world currencies, which are going to be worthwhile and which should I avoid like the plague (or should I say “avoid like H1N1… lol)?

Go Joe Wilson! You can say it was distasteful and disrespectful but the truth is…Mr. Wilson just couldn’t sit there quietly knowing that lies are being told not only to Congress but there constiuents. I applaud him for his action as I am tired of being lied too just to fulfil the agenda of the elite. We are being sold an illusion and Mr. Wilson had the balls to tell the truth. Whatever you believe will be truth, not because it is, because you believe or imagine it too be. There can be no truth in Illusion for truth has no Illusion. Infinite Love is the only truth, everything else is Illusion. When the World wakes up to and sees that all power resides in each individual as being absolutely sacred, we will all be free. Nobody has any more or less power than anyone else and that is what they don’t want you to believe. Law is an illusion when no one can prove where they get their authority over others from. Laws are only created to support illusions, truth has no illusions. The entire world’s Political, Legal and Religious system is built upon a house of cards, which is the illusion of the few having authority over masses. Nobody can prove that they have authority over others and that is the ultimate thing that will set you free. The abuse of power openly has a short life and those that perpetrate that abuse are always defeated. Freedom does not come with a price, it comes with the dispelling of illusion.

Searching for a destiny that’s mine there’s another place another time.
Touching many hearts along the way
yeah
hoping that I’ll never have to sa@
It’s just an illusion – illusion – illusion.
Follow your emotions anywhere
is it really magic in the air?
Never let your feelings get you down. Open up your eyes and look around
It’s just an illusion – illusion – illusion.
Could it be that it’s just an illusion putting me back in all this confusion?
Could it be that it’s just an illusion now?
Could it be that it’s just an illusion putting me back in all this confusion?
Could it be that it’s just an illusion now?
Could it be a picture in my mind? Never sure exactly what I’ll find.
Only in my dreams I turn you on. Here for just a moment then you’re gone.
It’s just an illusion – illusion – illusion.
Could it be that it’s just an illusion putting me back in all this confusion?
Could it be that it’s just an illusion now?
Could it be that it’s just an illusion putting me back in all this confusion?
Could it be that it’s just an illusion now? . . .

We watched the speech the other night, but reluctantly, we wanted to see if he said anything different. As far as we could tell, NOPE, nothing changed.

What I don’t like about this health care stuff, is, if it’s so good for us, then why not them? Why are they exempt from it. If we have to do it, then I think they should have to too. What makes them so special? Yes, I know, it’s because they’re the government, and it’s do as I say, not as I do. They can do whatever they darn well please.

As I was watching, to me it looked like Biden and Pelosi was bored stiff. Looked like they would rather have been some where else. But I noticed too, that if looks could kill, Pelosi won hands down.

insurance companies to treat their customers badly — by cherry-picking the healthiest individuals and trying to drop the sickest, by overcharging small businesses who have no leverage, and by jacking up rates. Insurance executives don’t do this because they’re bad people; they do it because it’s profitable.

The truth is that health insurance is one of the least profitable industries in America. In fact, according to Fortune magazine, such companies only make 2.2 cents for every dollar of gross sales:

He started by taking credit for saving America from, in his words, “the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression”.
One, I am not sure it was the worst potential crisis for Americans. I think it had the potential to be the worst financial crisis in history for the people in power in the federal government. I think it would have crushed the power in Washington. But the American people would have weathered it, rebounded, and carried on. We are a resourceful group.

USWep,
It is the worst economic crisis in the history of America, it has a very long way to go still (USA is probably only 20% through – and it will get far worse) and it will redefine political power up and down the spectrum – and the People will weather it, and recover, one way or another.

But Obama has not saved anything but the Elite’s cartel – and that is still in serious jeopardy.

The common man is still mired neck deep and in trouble.

He has certainly pushed the potential for complete disaster – hyperinflation – into the realm of possibility. He has set up the USA for default. He may have saved his Presidency; that is, made all of this happen after the next election – so that history will say he did well, but the fool after him caused the collapse.

Hate crimes only exist when it is White on Black crime.
Hate crimes do not exist when it is Black on White crime.

There is contradiction when a Pro-life kills Abortionists. Pro-life is supposed to honor life, not destroy it.

There is no contradiction when a person who believes killing humans at an early stage of development is a “right” ends up killing humans in an advanced stage of development. Destroyers of life are consistent when they destroy life.

See my reply above to the death-panel “nonsense”. Rationed care is a natural, predictable outcome of putting more demand on a system while the supply is stagnant or decreases (it will probably decrease because some doctors will want no part of such a system).

More demand for services coupled with less supply of services means that some people WILL be denied services… you cannot have it any other way.

The bill in the house mentions “end of life counseling” specifically.

Sarah Palin interprets this to mean that since more services will be demanded, but the supply of services will be stagnant or will shrink, the natural target for denial of service will be anyone who is elderly and is very sick. They have already made the vast majority of their “contribution to society” so the economic and social benefits of spending a ton of resources and time on extending their lives by a paltry percentage will be deemed too great of an expenditure of scarce resources that are better used elsewhere.

I would submit that Sarah probably ISN’T lying unless you can come up with a better and equally economically well-founded answer than that.

He basically did Ray, even though he didn’t use her name. Did you notice, though, that once Palin spoke out about these panels, that the Senate version dropped this provision. Now tell me, if there wasn’t such a provision, what was there to drop?

We’ve talked about word games before. Does the bill contain the words, “Death Panel”? No, it doesn’t. But let’s connect some dots.

At what point do healthcare costs increase the most? As we get older.

When looking to cut costs, which area will be looked at first? The older population.

How will we do this? End of life discussions.

With whom? Government incentivized (ie paid) health professionals.

There are probably some additional steps in there as well, but really, to save words…..Death Panels.

Utter insanity. I seriously cannot believe you think that would occur. Understand one thing Kathy – politicians are generally spineless – rather than stand up and address the issue they look for the easy way out. What was done was politically expedient.

Utter insanity you say? Nonsense! Nazi G–damn Germany was nonsense but it happened. Margaret Sanger and her eugenics crap was nonsense but it happened.

Don’t be a fool, you think mankind has matured. Then sir, I give you Rwanda or Cambodia. The worst is yet to come.

It can’t happen here. My ass it can’t. Learn about Huey Long if it hadn’t been for that dentist back in the 30’s and the sacrifice he made, we might have been in WW 2 on the other side. That camel’s nose under the tent analogy is pretty much spot on. Ask us old jokers what we thought the likelihood of abortion on demand would be circa 1967, my 21st birthday.

Here are some specific areas in the bill that deal with this subject. There are others as well, that talk about “special needs” patients, etc. You will note, that some of the “outrageous” claims are not true or only partially true, while others are pretty clear.

I agree with end of life planning and in fact, my husband and I both have paperwork filed and our kids are aware of what steps we would or would not like taken. What I disagree strongly with is a government official involved in these actions.

In his speech the President directly responded to concerns I’ve raised about unelected bureaucrats being given power to make decisions affecting life or death health care matters. He called these concerns “bogus,” “irresponsible,” and “a lie” — so much for civility. After all the name-calling, though,

what he did not do is respond to the arguments we’ve made, arguments even some of his own supporters have agreed have merit.

In fact, after promising to “make sure that no government bureaucrat …. gets between you and the health care you need,” the President repeated his call for an Independent Medicare Advisory Council — an unelected, largely unaccountable group of bureaucrats charged with containing Medicare costs. He did not disavow his own statement that such a group, working outside of “normal political channels,” should guide decisions regarding that “huge driver of cost … the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives….” He did not disavow the statements of his health care advisor, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, and continuing to pay his salary with taxpayer dollars proves a commitment to his beliefs. The President can keep making unsupported assertions, but until he directly responds to the arguments I’ve made, I’m going to call him out too.

LOI – so here is where you start losing HUGE chunks of credibility when you blindly copy/paste Sarah Palin nonsense. I love it when disparate comments, supposed comments and right wing blogturds are mixed together to crap out a conspiracy theory. So LOI – have you read up on what the IMAC actually is and what it is intended to do? Have you read the IMAC Bill and understand any of the checks and balances? I also love the hypocricy involved when conservative windbags state that rather than making anything looking like sweeping change they should fix Medicare/Medicaid first as a way of ‘show us first that you can handle something small before something big’. I actually don’t mind that. What I get pissed about is when we look at a fundamental problem of the programs – cost – it is seen as ‘good’ to make sure we have control over costs. YET – when any notion of cost enters in the larger reform debate – it gets flipped into Death Panels. Utter and complete bs.

BTW – do us a favor – if you’re going to quote other sources – then use…….quotes. That way I know if I am reading someone else’s thoughts or your own.

Once again, see above. Economically speaking, Sarah Palin’s claims about “Death Panels” or “End of life counseling” and what that probably is going to mean in reality is far from “nonsense” and is a pretty darn logical conclusion.

If we are faced with increased demand coupled with stagnant or decreased supply, costs are going to HAVE to be cut somewhere.

Are we going to cut the costs by reducing care for people in their 20s and 30s that have jobs and kids, or are we going to cut the costs by reducing care for people in their 70s and 80s who are no longer a productive part of the workforce?

Or are you making the argument that in spite of increased demand with stagnant or decreased supply, all of the necessary cuts can be made by “eliminating waste and fraud”?

If that is your position, I would say, “Good luck eliminating waste and fraud by involving the government… all that will do is INCREASE waste and fraud by at least a factor of 5.”

Peter – take the crux of your argument and apply it to the military – we do not end up with “less military” – we generally end up with an adequate level of defense – it is by no means perfect.

Ask yourself – overall are we getting healthier (or at least smarter about health and medicine) or worse?

Why has ALE increased?

You assume that the only way to ensure cost control is by eliminating service. Ask yourself who else would this be done without decrease in service? (hint: eliminate administrative redundancy, better use of technology). There are answers Peter – scaring the bejesus out of everyone is an answer – just not a real good one.

Do not ignore the obvious – we do already ‘ration’ or control some care. Unless they can skirt the system (which I have posted on before) – those who benefit the least get rationed as is (an alcoholic who needs a new liver).

No I have not read the IMAC Bill, was not aware, thank you.
I have tried to read the house and senate bills, you will have to be the judge of what I understand on that. Not sure I will try to read IMAC, may just wait for Obama’s or the one from senate finance.

I think the devil is in the details, not just what is said, but what is deliberately being kept out of these bills. The critics may be wrong on some things, but where the Rep’s have tried to have inserted language making sure illegal immigrants or abortion is not covered does make me wonder if there are not some loop-holes. And I do not think Obama has given a fair answer, just a vague assurance. Nor do I think the media has done a good job in answering these questions. We hear the outrage on Wilson’s outburst, but was he right? Is the real story not about the truth?

Fox still claims to be objective when simply “reporting news”; however, “reporting news” makes up less and less of their daily schedule.

They don’t claim to be unbiased in their “opinion” shows, and those are taking up more and more of the Fox schedule.

Whether Fox really is “objective” when “reporting news” is up for debate. I don’t think anyone holds any illusions that the opinion shows reflect exactly what Fox thinks is going to bring in the money, and right now, opposition to Obama is bringing in the money like crazy.

Hey guys,
I agree with both of you on your concern for objectivity and what qualifies for objectivity and how to make sure we remain objective by seeing both sides.
Where do you both stand on not reporting of the news or just glossing over it, if it doesnt aid your candidate and you know all the objectivity in the world wont help your candidate.
Two examples of neglected stories just within the last 10 days or so, the Van Jones debauchle and the ACORN tapes out of Baltimore and D.C.These two stories have ruffled my feathers on how big they really are and how little coverage and how few Americans have even heard of either.
I too want objectivity but i also want an honest main street media.

Do you think stories that may cost a candidate his parties nomination should be kept from the public,like the LA Times tapes on Obama and Khalidi bashing Jews being witheld or do you think the public has a right to know and at least here the press spin a story?

The real objectivity or lack of lies within choosing which stories to cover and which ones not too.

Brother, I’m with you …. I never said Bush III said something concrete (hell, he smiled at his own lack of details). It’s why I’m for nationalized health insurance … nothing vague about it. Everybody has coverage, end of story.

But, there has to be some solution for those not covered. If there’s a doomsday depression (very possible) in the near future, it won’t make a difference. But we need to pursue something in the meantime.

Why bother with insurance? Why not let the government run the hospitals? It might be kind of nice to have my husband be a government employee, if he gets to work Post Office hours. Then he can just walk out of the OR mid-surgery when his shift is up and tell his patients, “Sorry, we only got the finger sown back on half way.” You may think that’s an exaggeration, but my husband says that’s what it’s like at the VA. He’s never seen a doctor walk out of the ER but the nurses will walk right out when their shift is up and leave the surgeon short handed. At the VA there are places where 10 people are doing the job that one person could do and other places where one person is doing a job that needs 10 people to do it. It’s managed terribly. My husband refers to the VA as “third world.” Is that what you want?

Buy as much real property now as you possibly can. If you do not, there is a pretty good possibility that it will be split up between the US Government (which owns the banks) and the Chinese Government (which owns much of our National debt.)

So, if you wanna be a real Patriot and really are in favor of freedom and liberty, buy big hunks of property 🙂

I suppose that there is always the danger that the government will suddenly decide to no longer recognize property ownership; however, property ownership is so ingrained in our society that I think that the government would be VERY cautious about taking that step.

First, the government would have to undertake a LONG campaign to convince the American people that property ownership was “evil” and was only possible by someone who has “more” taking away from someone who has “less”. This approach works when the government applies it to money (“profits are evil, the only way anyone can make a profit is by stealing money from someone else” or other such BS rhetoric), but I am not sure that the government could SUCCESSFULLY use that sort of argument against property ownership.

The most likely outcome of the government attempting to outlaw private property ownership would be either a violent revolution or a civil war (both basically the same thing, mind you).

That’s interesting, csm. I was wondering that very thing a few days ago. I’m guessing they’ll go for all the forclosed properties. The bad economy will make that a rather large number. I think its a ways off yet, but if Obama and crew are what I think they are, they just might go there.

Foreclosures are still high here in Reno. People are still struggling to make their mortgage payments. Some homes have sold, but well below the value of the homes, and asking prices. Others have been on the market now for well over 6 months at least. A lot of homes I noticed are for rent, so I’m assuming that people are keeping, but renting instead. If you can afford to have more than one house, guess you’re doing pretty good. Not sure about the rent range, but last I looked, it was anywhere from $1200.00 a month up to $2000.00, so I don’t know if that’s goo or not. But I’m going by the neighborhood, the size of house and economy.

Ironically, what was that link Ray shared yesterday? Congress booing at Bush when he was talking about the dangers coming to Social Security.

I just get so tired about the lack of truth. Be upfront, let us know how bad it is and then we can deal with it. It is the unknown (and the behind the curtain) that is so frustrating.

And a mere dozen sentences into his speech two days ago, the President tells us, “But thanks to the bold and decisive action we have taken since January, I can stand here with confidence and say that we have pulled this economy back from the brink.”

He may have somehow managed to pull the economy “back from the brink”; however, the path back to the brink is still in a downhill direction, and his actions have probably made the grade of the path steeper, so our next trip to the brink will probably be faster, and it may even be fast enough to send us right over the edge.

1. FICA tax income limit will be removed. All earned income will be taxed.
2. There will be an effort to absorb IRA & 401K monies into SS. If not confiscation, then your SS benefit will be reduced commenserate with your level of savings.
3. Benefits will be means tested.
4. Death taxes will increase with proceeds going to FICA. If you accepted Medicare, they already to this.
5. All dividends and interest (unearned income) will be taxed before it reaches your IRA or 401K. This tax will be paid by the Payor so by definition your profits in the IRA or 401K are still not being taxed until withdrawl.
6. Inflation will erode all savings and will exceed the COLA on SS benefits. (Tax via the printing press.)
7. Finally, end-of-life planning will be encouraged so we will not be a burden on our grandchildren.

I am not sure where the search name came from but it should have been T-Ray. I first posted a couple of days ago so am relatively new.

When Bush II was talking about privatizing SS, I thought he used the lamest arguments for what could have been a good long-term solution. What he should have been saying is, had we privatized just the excess contributions starting in 1984 instead of putting them in the general fund, we would not be facing this debate now. Instead, we allowed Congress to squander the money. Also, everytime he was interviewed, he should have asked the interviewer where his 401K & IRA funds were. If they were not in T-bills, he should have offered a trade. That would have driven the point home.

I am afraid that those who scrimped through their productive years to save for retirement will get penalized while those who partied and failed to save will get rewarded.

On reducing the cost of Medicare/Medicaid, Obama’s approach is to squeeze the providers more. This will drive them out of the business thus ensuring a reduction in supply hence rationing. He should be looking at ways to get the providers to increase there efficiency and quality such a TQM techniques (Total Quality Management), computerization, tort reform, etc. The cost reductions will then follow naturally. Thedacare in Appleton, WI is doing this (TQM). It works.

When the health care system starts to fail, we will see off-shoring of this as well. India and Thailand already have hospitals that catter to westerners. They are US trained doctors, well equipped, have a low nurse to patient ratios and seaside resorts attached for extended recouperation periods. All this at a fraction of the US costs. So they fix your ticker and your tan at the same time. I am suprised that insurance companies are not providing the airline tickets.

I am a physicist (optics, infrared physics, spectroscopy, chemcial analysis, instrument design) dealing with a wife who has had medical problems for 20 years. So I have lots of experience dealing with health insurance. They have gotten better over that time period. There is still much room for improvement.

I work for and am an investor in a small business that deals with Fortune 500 energy, pharmceutical, semiconductor, and chemcial companies worldwide. I have sat on ASTM committes writing standards for the oil, chemcial and pharmaceutical industries. In one case we were locked in a hotel room in Boston for 2 days to write a standard. I insisted up front that we capture the 80% agreement and then move to the 20% disagreement. It worked, we had a document in record time.

I do not expect government to solve my problems. I do expect them to provide a level playing field, i.e. a set of rules that allows everyone an equal chance but all must be within the dictates of the Constitution.

Even if that “thingy” is a non-sentient natural process which we could replicate in a lab if we had sufficient knowledge?

Let’s start with that premise!

If sentience exists IN the Universe – would not sentience exist IN the “thingy” the created Everything the Universe?

It could be an concept of sentience that is far greater than what we experience – but I cannot see it being LESS than what we know.

If that’s God by definition, then I have to accept His existence as fact.

A First Cause is as far as I can prove – I cannot prove the White Bearded Guy or the Fickle Finger of Fate Guy. Therefore, that is as far as I push my spiritual belief in God as well. I’m scientist, of course!

Obviously* either a natural physical process occurred or the universe was created, but if both are defined as God, I see no alternative. If it turns out that time-traveling aliens** were somehow responsible for creating the universe, would they also be “God” in your opinion?

Who created the aliens?

(That is the First Cause ‘loop’ – what created that, over and over again….)

Actually, it technically doesn’t matter which God made first… as long as he made both a rooster and a hen all is well, or as long as he made at least 2 eggs (one with a male zygote and the other with a female zygote) that would work out ok as well 🙂

I believe that if you read USW’s comments, and not just the article, he stated that, “I am not one of those that fall into the camp that feels the way past Presidents were treated justifies this action. On the contrary, I called out them for their actions, and I failed in calling out Wilson more harshly for his. It took me a night of introspection to realize that. So I do not condone his actions.”

So yes, in the article itself, you had reason to be disappointed, but if you had read USW’s follow-up comment from which I quoted, you would realize that he did in fact realize his own error in judgement and make an attempt to correct it.

My gun is in an inside the waist holster, so I normally don’t hold or cling to it. I think God is in my heart and as I see my religion its not that hell and damnation variety, so pretty upbeat about that. God love me, I love him back, obey most of his rules, live and let live. Now if I was of that sect that did not allow music, I would be pretty damn bitter.

Well shoot, caught myself fondling my pistol while typing, but I was smiling at the time!

As far as “the rest of us” go, yes, I will admit, too many of us fell into that trap of “well, the other side did it before, so it must be ok for us to do it now”

So I guess you can take solace in the fact that you can still harbor some disappointment with some of the rest of us for hypocrisy.

No matter whether you agree with side A or side B, you must hold both sides to the same standard.

Of course, I personally realize that side A and side B are just opposite sides of the same album, and therefore I do not expect anything useful or civil or positive from EITHER side anymore, but I am among the few 🙂

I don’t consider my reasoning to have anything to do with what the other side did. While I feel the President is entitled to respect, when he speaks in a joint secession, he is a guest, and should be accountable to respecting all members of that household. For him to say on national TV that some of what those members were saying and fighting Pelosi over was false, I can understand that provoking a reaction.

Obama’s words,
“There are also those who claim that our reform efforts would insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false. The reforms — the reforms I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.”

“Kathy said
September 11, 2009 at 9:31 am

Also, a little extra info on Joe Wilson. He is an immigration attorney, that is, an attorney that works with those who are looking to come to this country legally and so is well-versed with the challenges of dealing with illegals. He also was an author/co-author of two amendments (out of two committees) that put forth Amendments to this healthcare bill, that contained specific language that illegals would not be covered under this bill. Both of these amendments were overwhelmingly voted out.

He knows of what he shouts!”

So you have an expert in immigration who is not allowed to apply that expertise to any of these bills in congress, and the President
asks to speak to all of them about this and makes a statement this attorney knows to be lie, while at the same time pretty much tells the whole nation that Wilson is “making false statements”. Maybe all the Rep’s should have stood with him instead.

We were up in arms because Barby Boxer made a big deal out of the fact that he called her ma’am instead of “Senator”, and she was offended by it. And we weren’t even up in arms either. We just thought it was stupid.

But yes! I thought it was just funny as hell Todd. I do not HAVE any respect for any of the bastards in Washington. I could have cared less if it had been a Republican that was shouted out as a liar. Their Party would not make it any less true. Like when they called Bush an Imbecile. Or Palin “Carribou Barbie”.

I personally think it’s just plain stupid that such a big deal has been made out of a moron yelling “That’s a Lie!!” at a liar in the middle of his telling lies.

“House Democratic leaders announced Friday they will discipline Republican Rep. Joe Wilson next week if he does not apologize on the floor of the House for yelling “You lie” at President Obama during Wednesday’s joint address to Congress.

Democrats say they do not know what the sanction will be, but it is doubtful it will be censure. Censure in the House is a type of reprimand. Another alternative is an official rebuke.

This decision is a reversal by the speaker, who told FOX News after the speech she saw no need for discipline. At her weekly news conference Thursday, Pelosi reiterated that stance and said she wanted to move forward with health care.

But Democrats changed course Thursday afternoon after a leadership meeting in Pelosi’s office.

“Democrats say the insult clearly violated House rules of decorum. Therefore, the issue needs to be resolved on the House floor, either via apology or resolution,” said Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly.

The House rules state that lawmakers may not accuse the president of “lying” or being a “liar.””

My thoughts, if he committed slander, he would be sued and go to court to defend himself. TRUTH is a legal defense in cases of slander. If Wilson can prove Obama was lying, he is innocent of any crime. Lets put Obama and Wilson before Judge Judy and let them have it out on national TV, like Obama said he would bring about health reform, there on C-Span.

And now the Democrats are going over-board the other way. And the fact that Wilson and his likely opponent in the next election have raised over $1,000,000 since Wednesday night tells me just how polarized everything is these days.

My point is, if you want civil debate and respect shown for everyone, you cannot condone Wilson’s outburst.

(per the US Constitution, members of Congress are immune from prosecution for speech in either house)

“The House rules state that lawmakers may not accuse the president of “lying” or being a “liar.””

If he broke a house rule, it is proper for them to call him to task for this, so let the chips fall where they may on that. As for civil debate, it was a speech Obama requested them to allow and to listen to. I can understand Wilson taking his remarks personally. If Obama wants respect, he will have to give it first.

Free advice, do not come into my home and insult me or mine. Same for my business. Apply this logic to this issue, as I see it, Obama got off easy.

Excuse me, but didn’t he apologize already? They say they are going to punish him if he doesn’t apologize on the floor. If he’s already apologized twice, then why does he have to apologize again. Obama accepted the apology. What do they have to gain by punishing Joe Wilson? Give it a rest already.

________________________________________________________________-

House Democratic leaders announced Friday they will discipline Republican Rep. Joe Wilson next week if he does not apologize on the floor of the House for yelling “You lie” at President Obama during Wednesday’s joint address to Congress.

Democrats say they do not know what the sanction will be, but it is doubtful it will be censure. Censure in the House is a type of reprimand. Another alternative is an official rebuke.

At the time of Wilson’s outburst, the president was announcing that his health care reform bill does not cover illegal immigrants, a position that Wilson apparently didn’t believe.

The episode shocked lawmakers of both parties. Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi stared daggers in Wilson’s direction after the shout.

The discipline will not come until Tuesday at the earliest. The full House votes on the resolution. If the House approves the resolution, Wilson will then stand in the well of the House as his punishment is meted out by Pelosi, presiding from the dais.

This decision is a reversal by the speaker, who told FOX News after the speech she saw no need for discipline. At her weekly news conference Thursday, Pelosi reiterated that stance and said she wanted to move forward with health care.

But Democrats changed course Thursday afternoon after a leadership meeting in Pelosi’s office.

“Democrats say the insult clearly violated House rules of decorum. Therefore, the issue needs to be resolved on the House floor, either via apology or resolution,” said Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly.

The House rules state that lawmakers may not accuse the president of “lying” or being a “liar.”

Wilson rejected three requests to apologize on the House floor Thursday. He apologized twice after the speech. One was a general, written apology. He also issued a mea culpa by phone to White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. The president said Thursday he accepted and appreciated the apology

Hey BF, listened to a special on 9-11 tonight. When building 7 finally fell, the announcer said they’d been given notice sometime earlier that it was going to go; I believe all your links are just miscommunications – instead of hearing, “it’s going to fall” in the panic and chaos of the day, they heard, “it fell”, when it actually had not happened yet.

We should’ve come just “short” of strategically nuking whatever would have done the most damage to our enemies in one shot and let them kill each other.

I support Bush II’s initial response. I supported his fugazy one (Iraq). I was wrong both times.

One bada-boom, bada-bing and let Allah sort them out (no problem here) … but … now that this thing has gone on forever (with no end in sight), I say get out and leave something pointed in that direction and next time (god forbid, but I do suspect there will be a next time), let it rip.

That too would serve the greater good … “exterminate the brutes” (heard of darkness)

Nope, the greater good which I am a member of; in my case, the United States. We cannot permit others to attack us (seems reasonable, I hope). Likewise, I understand why many muslims are fundamentalists (they have been fucked with by us and other industrialized nations); while I support Isael’s right to exist and defend herself at all costs, I also understand why Palestinian kids join terrorist organizations.

So long as I’m living here in this society, I maintain the right to defend myself … at whatever costs.

I watched the clips, and John C. Crawford has definitely won over my heart. It is my hope too, that these senators and congressmen do watch, but my gut is telling me, even if they do, they won’t give a damn, all they care about is to hurry up and pass it. Like I said yesterday here, if it’s so damn good for us, then why should they be the exception?

Then to think that they will pay doctors the same pay, no matter what their specialty is, then why bother going into any specialties at all. My son is working his butt off in pre-med to get into medical school in a year, and his specialty is going into ER work. These idiots who are in Washington just don’t get do they. Do they really think that a heart specialist is no better than a GP. BTW, No offense to those GP’s out there, was just stating what I think is totally unfair.

If these Washington people need something special done, who do you think they will call? Not the doctors who they plan on dictating to, their very own specialists. I’m sure they will be exempt from this bill too, won’t they? Sure they will.

I can almost guarantee, that there will be a lot of doctors who will quit their practices before they are dictated to on how to run their practices. My son is so determined to become a doctor, I just hope he doesn’t regret all the training is going for as well as his one goal in life.

_______________________________________________________________
A group of black newspaper publishers on Friday charged Republican Rep. Joe Wilson with racism for yelling, “You lie,” at President Obama during his nationally televised address to a joint session of Congress.

The National Newspaper Publishers Association (NNPA) has canceled a planned January conference in South Carolina, where Wilson is a representative, and joined an economic boycott of the Palmetto State started 10 years ago by the state NAACP in protest of the confederate flag waving from the Statehouse grounds.

Wilson shouted his accusation Wednesday night in response to Obama saying that his health care reform plan would not cover illegal immigrants. Wilson, who drew sharp criticism from both sides of the political fence for the breach in decorum, immediately apologized to Obama and the president accepted. But House Democrats are pressing Wilson to apologize on the House floor or face disciplinary action.

The latest fallout from Wilson’s outburst, however, is the first time race has been injected into the controversy.

“As African-American newspaper publishers we stand in solidarity with the NAACP and fully support the economic boycott of South Carolina,” NNPA Chairman Danny J. Bakewell Sr. said. “Rep. Wilson’s remarks were racist, disrespectful, and a disingenuous violation — not only of President Obama — but to the institution of the presidency and only solidified our position and the importance in not spending black dollars where black people are not respected.

“The continued public and blatant disrespect of President Barack Obama by members of Congress will not be rewarded with our dollars nor will a state that continues to uphold America’s shameful past by flying the Confederate flag,” he added.

Wilson’s office could not be reached for comment Friday.

Established 69 years ago, the NNPA includes 200 black community newspapers across the country.

The NAACP boycott has reportedly had mixed results, with some saying it has cut into tourism and affected state beaches, restaurants and motels, among other businesses, and others saying it has only hurt black-owned businesses in the state.

In July, the Atlantic Coast Conference announced it would not hold its post-season baseball tournament in Myrtle Beach, S.C., in deference to the NAACP boycott.

WELL ACCORDING TO HOMELAND SECURITY SEC. I AM A TERRORIST, I HATE ABORTION, GAY MARRIAGE AND FEEL GOD SHOULD COME FIRST IN OUR LIVES. NEXT I AM 85 YEARS OLD, SO MAYBE I SHOULD JUST DIE AND GIVE EVERYTHING OVER TO MY SON, HE IS YOUNG ONLY 58, BUT HIS TURN WILL COME TO GIVE UP FOR THE YOUNG ONES. I WONDER WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO THE HEAD SNAKE WHEN HE GETS OLDER, WILL HIS DAUGHTERS GIVE HIM A LECTURE ON NOW IS THE TIME TO GO DAD, AND LEAVE ALL TO US, WE ARE YOUNGER, YOU WON,BUT WE ARE YOUNGER AND IT IS YOUR TIME TO MEET YOUR MAKER, SATAN. SHOULD I SAY KIDDING, NO I AM NOT KIDDING, I HAVE LIVED IN THIS WORLD 85 YEARS, I HAVE NEVER SEEN THE PROBLEMS, THE BAILOUTS, NOBODY BAILED ME OUT WHEN I WAS PREGNANT, NOT MARRIED, MY FAMILY HELPED ME, I RAISED MY SON WITH MY MOTHER HELPING ME, HE IS A FIREFIGHTER, US FOREST SERVICE, MARRIED 17 YEARS, A STEPFATHER TO 3 GIRLS, ALL THRU COLLEGE, ALL CONTRIBUTING MEMBERS OF SOCIETY. IF I WAS OBAMA’S GIRL, I WOULD HAVE KILLED A LIFE, AN INNOCENT LIFE, TO MAKE MYSELF HAPPY, I DO NOT THINK SO. I HAVE BEEN IN MILITARY, DONE MY DUTY TO GOD AND MY COUNTRY, ALL HE THINKS OF IS THE BEST SOUND IN THE WORLD IS THE SOUND OF 5 CALLS TO PRAYER, HE IS AN ILLEGAL MUSLIM-PRESIDENT AND EVEN THOUGH IT IS TRITE, I WILL SAY, THE TRUTH WILL OUT, IT IS COMING AND SOME DAY THAT PUPPET OF ROCKFELLER, ROOSEVELT, PELOSI, THE BELDERBERGS, ALL THE ELITES WHO HATE THE NATIVE-BORN AMERICAN, WHO ENVIES US, WHO ARE TRYING TO TAKE THIS COUNTRY DOWN TO BE A 3RD RATE MUSLIM COUNTRY, WITH BURKAS AND LASHES IF WE WEAR PANTS. LOTS OF LUCK, YOU AND YOUR FATHER THE DEVIL WILL HAVE A HARD TIME. SORRY SO LONG

Everytime ANY politician lies to you, if you are wasting your time by listening to his or her verbal flatulence, you should scream “You LIE!” in his or her face. To pretend that these parasites deserve any “respect” because they are sneaky enough to get elected is ridiculous. Look where politeness has gotten society.

We have one of the most expensive of health care in the civilized world, and we still can’t insure everyone – or even close to everyone – so they can afford to NOT DIE and NOT STAY SICK when we have the ability to heal them. That’s ridiculous.

I’ve read that more than half of personal bankruptcies are due to huge hospital bills people can’t pay (62%, I think). This new plan is barely a change. Why everyone is getting so worked up is boggling to me. This new plan is looking like pretty much what we have now with a few changes that will at least make sure most people are actually covered (God forbid!), and that insurance companies are a little more accountable. I don’t think it’s enough of an improvement, and no doubt there will be steps in the future, by whatever government is at the helm, to re-organize the system or add/remove additional programs, and that’s to be expected. With insurance rates rising at several times the rate of inflation/salaries, more companies are starting to drop and reduce health care benefits because they can no longer afford it.

Anybody’s plan – whether Obama’s or Rush Limbaugh’s, it doesn’t matter – would be better than doing nothing. When government is stagnant, the money-makers take control and start making/shaping the rules for their own industry, to the detriment of their own clients and patients. (And yes I know that Rush Limbaugh does not have his own health care plan.)
The whole Congress failed to pass anything under Clinton, pretty much avoided the issue under Bush, and are now threatening to blow any chance of passing a bill under Obama as well. Red state or blue state, THAT will hurt us all, much more than passing this (or another) less-than-ideal plan ever would.

I just hope they pass something now. If it doesn’t work well, they can fix it later. If it does work, good!

Hi Christopher….one change to make….the 62% is correct but not as a result off hospital bills. The actual figure is around 15%. I did research on this. I know where you got the 62% figure from but it did include credit card debt as well and the medical, when it happened, put them over the top.

Just curious if you approach all parts of your life in this way – anything, even if bad, is better than nothing. Like in picking a partner, like in advising your kids, like in choosing a job/career path.

In terms of the healthcare issues, I would rather we keep the parts of our system that work well (like HSA’s for instance), work on those areas that don’t work so well (like costs, insurance buying options) and above all, keep government out of it.

We are currently working our way through the series on healthcare on this blog, so stick around and join in the debate!

I was saying that any improvement is better than no improvement; although no system will be perfect, it is unlikely that a plan will pass that puts the average citizen in a position that isn’t the same as or better than before in terms of healthcare.

What we have now is what’s bad, not for everyone, but for way too many un/under-insured Americans.

Christopher, I think we are all frustrated by the “my way” or “no way” approach that Congress repeatably takes on many issues including energy, climate change, the economy, SS, ….. However, a bad health care bill could do far more harm than doing nothing. First, it could reduce available care for all if doctors vote with their feet. How many doctors are boomers who could choose to retire early? If this does add $1T to the deficit, do we hasten the eventual economic collapse of the government? The unfunded liabilities on the books already are staggering.

I have been in meetings where the discourse is strident and divergent. Often, of the items on the table, a strong majority will agree with about 80%. It is the last 20% that everyone disagrees with that causes the gridlock. Obama’s role should be to find and articulate the 80% and get legislation on that. The other 20% can be debated a while longer. Instead, Obama is pushing for his precursor to a single payer system. This puts government eventually in control of all of healthcare, something that is abhorant to many of us. If you think dealing with insurance companies is bad, wait until it is a unionized, civil servant-for-life rejecting your claims or deciding your treatment.

With the right incentives, both providers and insurance companies could do much to reduce costs and eliminate waste and mistakes. Uniform claim forms, digitized records (not nationalized), tort reform, smarter business practices, etc. could reduce costs for all of us. Example: currently, I rent medically necessary equipment for which the insurance company pays. They have been paying for 3 years. A rent to own with a termination date would be much smarter and cheaper for everyone.

There are inequities in the tax codes that favor “C” corps over sole proprietors and individuals. Such inequities should not exist.

My insurance company discounts payment to providers as does the government. So the unlucky bum who is sick and does not have insurance ends up paying a much greater price for his services than does the insurance company or the government. He is making up the difference for the underpayment by insurance and government and for the dead beats who pay nothing at all.

Healthcare is not free nor can government make it free. It must be payed for via personal outlay, taxes, or corporate largesse (which is buried in the cost of goods and services). If costs are to come down, the delivery system must be more efficient, more people must participate, and everyone must feel some pain ($ or 5 ounces of pot) when using the system. Otherwise, the system will be abused and over utilized.

There are pratical common sense solutions if we care to search for them. However, I am afraid we will end up with grid lock over the 20% again. Healthcare is not a right; life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are.

I feel like that statement, “The current system is not sustainable. Not changing it is just not an option anymore,” is one of the biggest problems in this entire discussion. There is no proposal on the table that is even equal in sustainability to what we currently have. If the government simply got completely out of the way, the market would correct itself to sustainability. It would be painful at first, but would happen none-the-less. If we really want health care reform, I suggest the reform we pursue is kicking government out of the equation. There is absolutely no plan they can come up with that will be better than allowing the market to self correct.

Christopher:
“The current system is not sustainable. Not changing it is just not an option anymore.”

So the solution is to drill a hole in the boat’s hull to put out the fire?

I agree something needs to be done and should have been done 20 years ago but idealogies and emotions have blocked all practical solutions. We are not in an emergency state with respect to healthcare. SS is. The main issue is the every rising costs of services and thus insurance. Why are costs increasing? Could it be because we have implement cumbersome rules for clearing new drugs through the system? Could it be because other countries negotiate lower drug prices leaving us to pay for new developements? Could it be because we demand the latest and best technologies be applied? Could it be because we do not take personal responsibility for our own health? Could it be because doctors avoid legal problems by over testing? Could it be because hospitals are inefficient? Could it be because insurance companies are inefficient? Could it be because records are still kept on paper? Could it be because too many mistakes are made? Could it be because of over prescription of drugs and services? Could it be because government mandates coverage? Could it be because we are providing services to people who should not be in this country? Could it be because we use ER’s as the service of last resort rather than cheaper clinics? Could it be because of over regulation? Could it be because we are lazy and we do not care what the costs are if the insurance company or government is paying the bill?

Find the problems and fix them, do not destroy the system. What Obama is proposing is basically squeezing the doctors and hospitals more by reducing payments. This will not work. It will only drive providers out of the buisness and result in defacto rationing. You need to identify root causes of the price increase and fix those directly.

Some of the proposed solutions actually cost nothing to implement. Tort reform is fee as is allowing insurance sales across state lines. There are inequities in the system that need to be fixed. Tax codes are skewed to favor corporations; insurance companies are allowed to cherry pick clients when they are individuals but not when insured through the work place.

As I said above, healthcare is not free. We will pay for it one way or another, either through direct payment for services, insurance premiums, taxes, or rationing (lack of care). My fear is more government involvement and control and less individual responsibility will lead to either greater costs or reduced services. Look at the fraud and waste already in Medicare/Medicaid.

As for the boomer doctors, most probably have enough savings already to retire. Why whould they put in the long hours with all the stress and worry for a reduced salary or a greater patient load?

There are elements in this bill that I do not like. I do not want the federal government mantaining a database with all my medical records in it. I do not want the IRS to be the enforcement arm levying fines in clear violation of the due process clause. I do not want the IRS to be allowed to hand over whatever records they have to the healthcare czar on demand. I do not want some government employee making medical decisions for me or my family.

Don’t demand change blindly, demand change for the better but keep it within the confines of the Constitution. Government’s proper role is to define the rules and ensure a level playing field. They should not be an active participant.

WELL I WAS IN A NURSING HOME WITH FRACTURED HIP, DIDN’T NEED REPLACEMENT, BUT NEEDED BED CARE FOR A WEEK OR SO, BUT AS THE DOCTOR HAD JUST PICKED MY CASE AS I DIDN’T HAVE A DOCTOR AT THAT TIME, HE KEPT ME ON NARCOTIC PAIN PILLS, WHICH I DIDN’T WANT TO TAKE, ONE NIGHT THE NURSE OUT OF MY PILLS, GAVE ME TYLENOL AT MY REQUEST AND I STARTED TO GET A LOT BETTER, THESE DOCTORS KEPT SO MANY SEDATED SO LESS TROUBLE FROM PATIENTS, MANAGER CALLED ME IN, YOU NOW OWE US $3,600 FOR I MONTH, NEXT MONTH NOW $7,200. 2 MONTHS, TO TOLD HER IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS, KNOCK IT OFF WHEN I GET OUT OF HERE I WILL CLAIM BANKRUPTCY AND WILL OWE YOU ZILCH!!!!!!!!!I DID AND ALSO THE AMBULANCE AS I HAD ASKED TO BE TAKEN TO VA HOSPITAL IN RENO AS I AM A VETERAN OF WW2, MARINE CORPS. FEMALE, AMBULANCE SAID TOO FAR, SO I TOLD TRUSTEE AT BANKRUPTCY COURT AND CLAIMED THEM ALSO. MAYBE SOME DAY THEY WILL LEARN TOO HIGH PRICES, THAT IS THE HEALTH CARE WE NEED,CONTROL THE CHARGES, ALSO HOW IS THE ARROGANT, NARCISSIST ONE GOING TO COVER MILLIONS MORE AND NOT HAVE DOCTORS AND NURSES TO TAKE CARE OF THEM. HIS PLANS ARE COMPLETELY CRAZY, HE AND HIS CZARS, NEED A 10 YEAR VACATION. I COULD SAY A LOT MORE, BUT ??????????????????

BY THE WAY, JUST A NOTE, FOX FORUM WILL NOT LET ME POST, THEY LET ME TYPE COMMENT AND WON’T SHOW ON SCREEN. I NEVER USE BAD LANGUAGE OR INSULT ANYBODY, I JUST TELL THE TRUTH AS I SEE IT, BUT NO. SO, I GO ON HERE AND THE BETRAYAL SITE, THIS IS GREAT AND INTERESTING HOW MANY BRIGHT PEOPLE ON HERE. GOD BLESS ALL WHO ARE CONCRNED ENOUGH TO TAKE TIME TO SUBMIT COMMENTS. THANKS USW